Transvaginal Versus Transabdominal Placement of Synthetic Mesh at Time of Sacrocolpopexy

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


ObjectivesOur primary aim was to compare mesh-related complications at the time of total vaginal hysterectomy with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TVH-LSC) versus laparoscopic placement of sacrocolpopexy mesh at time of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH-LSC). Our secondary aim was to compare operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, as well as subjective and objective success between these groups.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study with prospective follow-up for patients with uterovaginal prolapse who underwent TVH-LSC or LSH-LSC from June 2008 to July 2012. We collected baseline demographics, mesh-related complications, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and pelvic organ prolapse quantification data. We contacted patients postoperatively for telephone interviews and to request a return to the office for repeat examination.ResultsOne hundred eighty-two patients were included: 123 TVH-LSC and 59 LSH-LSC. There was no difference in the rate of mesh-related complications (1.6% [2/123]; 95% confidence interval, 0–3.86% vs 1.7% [1/59]; 95% confidence interval, 0–4.99%; P = 1.0). Median examination follow-up was similar between groups (9 (2–17) months TVH-LSC vs 9 (2–17) months LSH-LSC, P = 1.0).The TVH-LSC was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (256 ± 53 vs 344 ± 81 minutes; P < 0.01). There were no differences in intraoperative or postoperative complications or subjective and objective success between groups.ConclusionsThere was no difference in mesh-related complications between groups (1.6% TVH-LSC vs 1.7% LSH-LSC; P = 1.0). Vaginal mesh attachment during TVH-LSC decreased operative time by over 1 hour with no differences in intraoperative complications, reoperation for recurrent prolapse, and subjective or objective outcomes compared to LSH-LSC.

    loading  Loading Related Articles